A single link to Amazon's front page? Really? February 16, 2005 8:53 AM Subscribe
Yes, we all await the new Hitchhiker's Guide movie with equal parts fear and excitement. But an FPP linking to Amazon's home page to show the trailer for a new movie is bad form.
This crap is bad form. You are not the sole arbiter of what's good on MeFi. Obviously, a lot of people enjoyed the thread. But you didn't, so you had to go make a MeTa post about it.
Get over yourself.
posted by xmutex at 8:58 AM on February 16, 2005
Get over yourself.
posted by xmutex at 8:58 AM on February 16, 2005
I personally don't care about Hitchhikers. But, we've had links to goofy videos, videos of Mario giving Peach blowjobs, a link to the War of the Worlds trailer (with a mediocre accompanying paragraph), a solo link to the Episode III trailer, a link to the Alone in the Dark trailer, a link to the Fahrenheit 9/11 trailer, a link to the Lord of the Rings trailer.
This isn't new. The thread was mostly useless, but let the people have their own little version of AICN. It's best of the web to them.
posted by Arch Stanton at 9:00 AM on February 16, 2005
This isn't new. The thread was mostly useless, but let the people have their own little version of AICN. It's best of the web to them.
posted by Arch Stanton at 9:00 AM on February 16, 2005
Not a great post, no; and if all posts were like this it'd be a bad thing. However, a greta many of us saw this because it was posted, rather than hearing about it early. Believe me when we say we prefer to see these things sooner rather than later. The enthusiasm of the following conversation is proof that posts like this belong here, so long as they remain a rare rare occurence.
posted by nthdegx at 9:07 AM on February 16, 2005
posted by nthdegx at 9:07 AM on February 16, 2005
Because remember, it's not about the links, it's about how many comments you get.
posted by soyjoy at 9:10 AM on February 16, 2005
posted by soyjoy at 9:10 AM on February 16, 2005
Because remember, it's not about the links, it's about how many comments you get.
I'd be the first to say that the number of comments is not indicator of post quality. My point was that the enthusiasm of the conversation on many parts illustrates that a post linking to a h2g2 trailer is widely appreciated. But don't let the subtle difference put you off snarking, soyjoy -- because heaven knows it's not the snarky comments that make your point a valid one, right?
posted by nthdegx at 9:16 AM on February 16, 2005
No difference between the trailer link and any flash link.
posted by mischief at 9:16 AM on February 16, 2005
posted by mischief at 9:16 AM on February 16, 2005
Because remember, it's not about the links, it's about how many comments you get.
Funny, I thought it was about stimulating conversation and sharing links -- both of which this FPP did. I'd not have seen this link for days, probably, had this not been linked to on MeFi.
posted by papercake at 9:21 AM on February 16, 2005
Funny, I thought it was about stimulating conversation and sharing links -- both of which this FPP did. I'd not have seen this link for days, probably, had this not been linked to on MeFi.
posted by papercake at 9:21 AM on February 16, 2005
xmutex- the SOLE link in that FPP is to the FRONT PAGE of Amazon.com. What, you couldn't wait another hour to find out about it somewhere else?
Or would you rather I start posting FPP's linking to the previews of all the movies I'm excited about?
The enthusiasm of the following conversation is proof that posts like this belong here, so long as they remain a rare rare occurence.
Bull. That's just the Lowest Common Denominator happening to jibe with your gestalt.
posted by mkultra at 9:26 AM on February 16, 2005
Or would you rather I start posting FPP's linking to the previews of all the movies I'm excited about?
The enthusiasm of the following conversation is proof that posts like this belong here, so long as they remain a rare rare occurence.
Bull. That's just the Lowest Common Denominator happening to jibe with your gestalt.
posted by mkultra at 9:26 AM on February 16, 2005
so long as they remain a rare rare occurence
By the way, the increasing use of this excuse for "popular" FPP's that would otherwise be considered against the spirit, if not the letter, of the guidelines is distressing. It devalues any attempt to have any guidelines if people can break them at will and just say "well, I'm the only one, so it's OK."
posted by mkultra at 9:30 AM on February 16, 2005
By the way, the increasing use of this excuse for "popular" FPP's that would otherwise be considered against the spirit, if not the letter, of the guidelines is distressing. It devalues any attempt to have any guidelines if people can break them at will and just say "well, I'm the only one, so it's OK."
posted by mkultra at 9:30 AM on February 16, 2005
I'd also agree that popular is not the best rule of thumb for good posts. I just think your judgement is a little off on this occurence. Everyone continues to discuss the film despite the minor shitstorm surrounding the post. I just think with responses as enthusiastic as papercake's it takes some special type of miserable bastard to pick on this thread on particular, and to continue doing so.
posted by nthdegx at 9:35 AM on February 16, 2005
posted by nthdegx at 9:35 AM on February 16, 2005
the SOLE link in that FPP is to the FRONT PAGE of Amazon.com.
mkultra, that's where the trailer is located. On the FRONT PAGE of Amazon.com. If you can find somewhere else to find the link, please post it. I can't. Many times, the studios make deals with sites to host a trailer for an indefinate time period, a few days, a week, etc. Who knows what kind of deal the studio cut with Amazon, it may be the only place to get the trailer for a while. Or not, who knows?
Yeah, the thread was weak. Nobody will argue otherwise. They could've done some research, provided a little bit of insight. But, they didn't. It could've been a good thread based around the trailer link, but without that insight, it's a weak thread. It should still stay. Movie trailers being linked to is not new, look at my first post in this thread, goofy videos are not new, goofy flash animations are not new either. This falls into the same category as those.
posted by Arch Stanton at 9:35 AM on February 16, 2005
mkultra, that's where the trailer is located. On the FRONT PAGE of Amazon.com. If you can find somewhere else to find the link, please post it. I can't. Many times, the studios make deals with sites to host a trailer for an indefinate time period, a few days, a week, etc. Who knows what kind of deal the studio cut with Amazon, it may be the only place to get the trailer for a while. Or not, who knows?
Yeah, the thread was weak. Nobody will argue otherwise. They could've done some research, provided a little bit of insight. But, they didn't. It could've been a good thread based around the trailer link, but without that insight, it's a weak thread. It should still stay. Movie trailers being linked to is not new, look at my first post in this thread, goofy videos are not new, goofy flash animations are not new either. This falls into the same category as those.
posted by Arch Stanton at 9:35 AM on February 16, 2005
That link would have been a good part of a larger post. As it is posts that are only links to Amazon.com just to say "look what they have there right now" even if what they have is cool is sort of lame, imho. It's like linking to CNN when there's a breaking news story. Every so often it's necessary, frequently it's not.
posted by jessamyn at 9:37 AM on February 16, 2005
posted by jessamyn at 9:37 AM on February 16, 2005
But don't let the subtle difference put you off snarking, soyjoy -- because heaven knows it's not the snarky comments that make your point a valid one, right?
I've been trying to parse the positive/negative meaning in this and gave up. Meanwhile, my point is pretty simple, and it goes like this:
Metafilter: It's about the links.
If that's changed, and it's now about the discussion instead, fine, make that case. The thread shouldn't be deleted or anything, but yeah, it's bad form and shouldn't be encouraged - especially with the "but look how many comments it got" defense.
posted by soyjoy at 9:44 AM on February 16, 2005
I've been trying to parse the positive/negative meaning in this and gave up. Meanwhile, my point is pretty simple, and it goes like this:
Metafilter: It's about the links.
If that's changed, and it's now about the discussion instead, fine, make that case. The thread shouldn't be deleted or anything, but yeah, it's bad form and shouldn't be encouraged - especially with the "but look how many comments it got" defense.
posted by soyjoy at 9:44 AM on February 16, 2005
As long as you bring up "It's about the links", what specifically is wrong with that link?
posted by mischief at 9:47 AM on February 16, 2005
posted by mischief at 9:47 AM on February 16, 2005
For me at least, right now, the link was the best of the web.
However, the link will not continue to be best of the web, and I think that may be where the problem is.
posted by catachresoid at 9:53 AM on February 16, 2005
However, the link will not continue to be best of the web, and I think that may be where the problem is.
posted by catachresoid at 9:53 AM on February 16, 2005
the link will not continue to be best of the web
According to the front page of the IMDB, the trailer is exclusive to Amazon and they make it seem that it's only for today.. It's too bad there isn't a direct link to the page on Amazon that has the trailer or to any other site that was able to hack Amazon. Starting tomorrow the link will be useless.
posted by Arch Stanton at 10:08 AM on February 16, 2005
According to the front page of the IMDB, the trailer is exclusive to Amazon and they make it seem that it's only for today.. It's too bad there isn't a direct link to the page on Amazon that has the trailer or to any other site that was able to hack Amazon. Starting tomorrow the link will be useless.
posted by Arch Stanton at 10:08 AM on February 16, 2005
When did we get to the point that every post has to be reviewed? Is it because there are so many members now that it's necessary?
posted by Doug at 10:16 AM on February 16, 2005
posted by Doug at 10:16 AM on February 16, 2005
I just think with responses as enthusiastic as papercake's it takes some special type of miserable bastard to pick on this thread on particular, and to continue doing so.
Well, I guess we should just turn the site over to mob rule, then?
As I pointed out, I'm as psyched (and worried) as anyone about the movie. But you can't shoehorn your enthusiasm about a topic into a bad post about it and expect the former to trump the latter. When your favorite celebrity takes a dump, it still smells like crap.
posted by mkultra at 10:19 AM on February 16, 2005
Well, I guess we should just turn the site over to mob rule, then?
As I pointed out, I'm as psyched (and worried) as anyone about the movie. But you can't shoehorn your enthusiasm about a topic into a bad post about it and expect the former to trump the latter. When your favorite celebrity takes a dump, it still smells like crap.
posted by mkultra at 10:19 AM on February 16, 2005
Folks, the nice thing about the post is that it generated the discussion that generated the first non-embedded version of this video anywhere on the internet. As in, WE SCOOPED SLASHDOT!
Direct download.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:33 AM on February 16, 2005
Direct download.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:33 AM on February 16, 2005
CD, there were non-embedded versions leaked out there yesterday at various non-mefi locales.
posted by shawnj at 10:36 AM on February 16, 2005
posted by shawnj at 10:36 AM on February 16, 2005
Where? /. still has no links to anything. The only non-embedded versions I've seen were for the preview trailer.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:39 AM on February 16, 2005
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:39 AM on February 16, 2005
How is this different from linking to a(nother) dippy Flash game?
posted by eustacescrubb at 10:52 AM on February 16, 2005
posted by eustacescrubb at 10:52 AM on February 16, 2005
How is this different from linking to a(nother) dippy Flash game?
(a) They're not links to the front page of Amazon, which will become invalid very quickly.
(b) They're web content. The web just happens to be the first place people see movie trailers, but they're available via other media with exactly the same content. I say this to head off the inevitable "what about news fpp's?" question- a good "newsy" FPP points to an in-depth article you can't find offline.
posted by mkultra at 11:00 AM on February 16, 2005
(a) They're not links to the front page of Amazon, which will become invalid very quickly.
(b) They're web content. The web just happens to be the first place people see movie trailers, but they're available via other media with exactly the same content. I say this to head off the inevitable "what about news fpp's?" question- a good "newsy" FPP points to an in-depth article you can't find offline.
posted by mkultra at 11:00 AM on February 16, 2005
shawnj -- I see what you're talking about. Thanks for the heads-up.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:01 AM on February 16, 2005
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:01 AM on February 16, 2005
When is web content not web content when said content is on the web?
In what other media is this trailer available? Oh, do I need to have a television now?
posted by mischief at 11:07 AM on February 16, 2005
In what other media is this trailer available? Oh, do I need to have a television now?
posted by mischief at 11:07 AM on February 16, 2005
I hear you'll be able to see it in the theaters soon. They may even run it in this new thing I've heard about called a "commercial" on TV. Some of the cutting-age folks are even putting them on other DVD's.
You know, the same media you'd conceiveably use to watch the actual movie, which will not be on the web.
posted by mkultra at 11:11 AM on February 16, 2005
You know, the same media you'd conceiveably use to watch the actual movie, which will not be on the web.
posted by mkultra at 11:11 AM on February 16, 2005
/cries
posted by The Baby Jesus at 11:26 AM on February 16, 2005
posted by The Baby Jesus at 11:26 AM on February 16, 2005
Hope that joke was worth $5. :)
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:27 AM on February 16, 2005
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:27 AM on February 16, 2005
"Popular response doesn't make this a good FPP."
-- mkultra
"Rules were made to be broken."
-- popular response
"The good of the many outwieghs the good of the few, or the one."
-- The benefit of Spock notwithstanding.
Sorry, that's snarky and a little stupid, but cmon. What is the purpose of Metafilter? To serve its users.
If the users declare a subject worthy of discussion, why must you declare it unworthy? Trying to please all of the people all of the time is literally impossible, so you kind of have to take it for granted that you will be among the unhappy ones sometimes. I know I am.
And you know what? I ignore those threads. Hmm. It's not a new idea, why is it so difficult?
That doesn't have to be a rhetorical question: Why is it so hard to ignore threads that (in the observer's opinion) suck?
posted by o2b at 11:35 AM on February 16, 2005
-- mkultra
"Rules were made to be broken."
-- popular response
"The good of the many outwieghs the good of the few, or the one."
-- The benefit of Spock notwithstanding.
Sorry, that's snarky and a little stupid, but cmon. What is the purpose of Metafilter? To serve its users.
If the users declare a subject worthy of discussion, why must you declare it unworthy? Trying to please all of the people all of the time is literally impossible, so you kind of have to take it for granted that you will be among the unhappy ones sometimes. I know I am.
And you know what? I ignore those threads. Hmm. It's not a new idea, why is it so difficult?
That doesn't have to be a rhetorical question: Why is it so hard to ignore threads that (in the observer's opinion) suck?
posted by o2b at 11:35 AM on February 16, 2005
mkultra, this horse isn't just dead, it's decomposing. Step away.
posted by xmutex at 11:39 AM on February 16, 2005
posted by xmutex at 11:39 AM on February 16, 2005
If Matt plans on running this site by sticking to a set of rules, than he has to enforce those rules. He's fighting two different fronts here: he ignores posts that are blatantly poor, and he deletes/reformats metatalk posts that are blatantly poor.
Is that a good thread? No, it's not. The amazon link is easily the worst link I've ever seen on the front page. The only thing that could have made it better was a referral tag. Is it fun? Sure.
Was AlexReynold's MeTa post a good thread? No. Was it fun? Yes.
If we're going to enforce these rules (that are, for the most part, a good thing), we need to keep up some consistency.
posted by graventy at 12:04 PM on February 16, 2005
Is that a good thread? No, it's not. The amazon link is easily the worst link I've ever seen on the front page. The only thing that could have made it better was a referral tag. Is it fun? Sure.
Was AlexReynold's MeTa post a good thread? No. Was it fun? Yes.
If we're going to enforce these rules (that are, for the most part, a good thing), we need to keep up some consistency.
posted by graventy at 12:04 PM on February 16, 2005
How is this different from linking to a(nother) dippy Flash game?
What's wrong with dippy Flash games?
posted by gwint at 12:11 PM on February 16, 2005
What's wrong with dippy Flash games?
posted by gwint at 12:11 PM on February 16, 2005
If the users declare a subject worthy of discussion, why must you declare it unworthy?
Because we're not Fark, and MeFi is not a democracy.
Why is it so hard to ignore threads that (in the observer's opinion) suck?
Sorry, this is bad logic. It's one thing to ignore a post you're not interested in, but as the volume of "excused" bad posts increases, it's harder to ignore those.
If Matt plans on running this site by sticking to a set of rules, than he has to enforce those rules.
Bingo. There are rules here, both explicitly stated and implicitly agreed upon. An ex post facto excuse of "well, we got a good discussion out of it" is no excuse for a bad post.
posted by mkultra at 12:26 PM on February 16, 2005
Because we're not Fark, and MeFi is not a democracy.
Why is it so hard to ignore threads that (in the observer's opinion) suck?
Sorry, this is bad logic. It's one thing to ignore a post you're not interested in, but as the volume of "excused" bad posts increases, it's harder to ignore those.
If Matt plans on running this site by sticking to a set of rules, than he has to enforce those rules.
Bingo. There are rules here, both explicitly stated and implicitly agreed upon. An ex post facto excuse of "well, we got a good discussion out of it" is no excuse for a bad post.
posted by mkultra at 12:26 PM on February 16, 2005
Jesus, mkultra, what got up your nose? The fact that I was THRILLED to see this has nothing to do with my puzzlement at your vehemence about it. We've had so goddamn many worse posts than an early heads up about the trailer for a movie many Mefites are awaiting with bated breath. Seems like a natural for the front page to me.
FYI, I wanted to link to all the H2G2 posts but the tags are all over the place.
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:36 PM on February 16, 2005
FYI, I wanted to link to all the H2G2 posts but the tags are all over the place.
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:36 PM on February 16, 2005
It's becoming increasingly clear who will be the ones writing cranky letters to the newspaper when they become elderly.
posted by smackfu at 1:45 PM on February 16, 2005
posted by smackfu at 1:45 PM on February 16, 2005
An ex post facto excuse of "well, we got a good discussion out of it" is no excuse for a bad post.
If this is true, I think something is wrong with the system, and MeFi isn't what it should be. A community site is about community, and rules are important, but if they impede good discussion there should be exceptions.
And it seems to me that exceptions are made -- the continuing existence of the thread supports this. That it has not been deleted is evidence that, yes, good discussion excuses "bad" posts.
I would not argue that it was worthy of deletion before discussion arose, but the cat's out of the bag, and the participants (whether or not they liked the subject of the discussion) seemed to like the discussion.
You wouldn't tell people in a coffeeshop to stop talking because you don't like the way the conversation started, not when there's no reason for you to participate if you don't want to.
posted by o2b at 1:46 PM on February 16, 2005
If this is true, I think something is wrong with the system, and MeFi isn't what it should be. A community site is about community, and rules are important, but if they impede good discussion there should be exceptions.
And it seems to me that exceptions are made -- the continuing existence of the thread supports this. That it has not been deleted is evidence that, yes, good discussion excuses "bad" posts.
I would not argue that it was worthy of deletion before discussion arose, but the cat's out of the bag, and the participants (whether or not they liked the subject of the discussion) seemed to like the discussion.
You wouldn't tell people in a coffeeshop to stop talking because you don't like the way the conversation started, not when there's no reason for you to participate if you don't want to.
posted by o2b at 1:46 PM on February 16, 2005
If I was in a raid with mkultra I'd so ninja loot his drops.
*excuses self*
posted by The God Complex at 1:56 PM on February 16, 2005
*excuses self*
posted by The God Complex at 1:56 PM on February 16, 2005
But don't let the subtle difference put you off snarking, soyjoy -- because heaven knows it's not the snarky comments that make your point a valid one, right?
Difficulty parsing the positive and negative? Why? There's only the one negative in there. If it's the sarcasm that floored you; well... I just followed your lead.
posted by nthdegx at 2:02 PM on February 16, 2005
Difficulty parsing the positive and negative? Why? There's only the one negative in there. If it's the sarcasm that floored you; well... I just followed your lead.
posted by nthdegx at 2:02 PM on February 16, 2005
Matt will delete it if he judges it unworthy. Simple really.
For another debate look into all things Macintosh on Metafilter and then grind on about that... I thought Seth was gone. I was wrong...
posted by juiceCake at 2:02 PM on February 16, 2005
For another debate look into all things Macintosh on Metafilter and then grind on about that... I thought Seth was gone. I was wrong...
posted by juiceCake at 2:02 PM on February 16, 2005
If this is true, I think something is wrong with the system, and MeFi isn't what it should be.
There's nothing wrong with the system, as evidenced by the 30-odd perfectly good posts today. There are plenty of things to discuss on MeFi.
A community site is about community, and rules are important, but if they impede good discussion there should be exceptions.
Who gets to determine which posts merit exceptions? There have been plenty of posts that generated a slew of comments before being deleted. Using the number of comments as a yardstick of a post's worthiness has continually been decried far and wide.
Pardon my foray into politics, but here's an analogy- the political Right's favorite tactic recently is to establish an argument about a subject- say, that Evolution is a "theory" and should not be taught exclusively in schools. They then demand that their argument- that Creationism is an equally valid theory- be given merit by journalists merely by its existence as an "alternate viewpoint". You'd find plenty of people willing to speak up and discuss that, but it doesn't change the simple fact that something does not merit mention solely by its existence and because a certain segment of the population demands it be heard.
Can anyone here honestly make a good argument for the post's existence on its own? Can we at least agree on that? If so, can we agree that it's setting a bad example?
posted by mkultra at 2:07 PM on February 16, 2005
There's nothing wrong with the system, as evidenced by the 30-odd perfectly good posts today. There are plenty of things to discuss on MeFi.
A community site is about community, and rules are important, but if they impede good discussion there should be exceptions.
Who gets to determine which posts merit exceptions? There have been plenty of posts that generated a slew of comments before being deleted. Using the number of comments as a yardstick of a post's worthiness has continually been decried far and wide.
Pardon my foray into politics, but here's an analogy- the political Right's favorite tactic recently is to establish an argument about a subject- say, that Evolution is a "theory" and should not be taught exclusively in schools. They then demand that their argument- that Creationism is an equally valid theory- be given merit by journalists merely by its existence as an "alternate viewpoint". You'd find plenty of people willing to speak up and discuss that, but it doesn't change the simple fact that something does not merit mention solely by its existence and because a certain segment of the population demands it be heard.
Can anyone here honestly make a good argument for the post's existence on its own? Can we at least agree on that? If so, can we agree that it's setting a bad example?
posted by mkultra at 2:07 PM on February 16, 2005
If I was in a raid with mkultra I'd so ninja loot his drops.
Not before I PK your sorry ass! ;)
posted by mkultra at 2:15 PM on February 16, 2005
Not before I PK your sorry ass! ;)
posted by mkultra at 2:15 PM on February 16, 2005
OMG COLDVEIN JUST NINJALOOTED MKULTRAS RING OF PEDANTRY. NO WARRYUR WUD EVAR WHERE THAT!
Pardon my foray into politics, but here's an analogy- the political Right's favorite tactic recently is to establish an argument about a subject- say, that Evolution is a "theory" and should not be taught exclusively in schools. They then demand that their argument- that Creationism is an equally valid theory- be given merit by journalists merely by its existence as an "alternate viewpoint". You'd find plenty of people willing to speak up and discuss that, but it doesn't change the simple fact that something does not merit mention solely by its existence and because a certain segment of the population demands it be heard.
I will pardon your foray into politics, but not your analogy, which is a poor one. The "theories" you suggest are actual polar opposites--one is a theory more than adequately backed up by scientific fact, the other is a fairy tale that requires faith. What you're talking about is wanting your view of the guidelines enforced more strongly, when precedent suggests that these posts are okay.
Trust me, man, I was there once. I posted a thread about the bad example linking to LOTR trailers set. But you know what? Who cares. They're fun and people seem to be enjoying the discussion. They don't occur every day. They don't occur for every movie, or even most movies, just a few highly anticipated (and geeky) ones. You're going to have to work a lot harder to make a slippery slope argument before I'm going to get my crazy carpet and ride down with you.
posted by The God Complex at 2:15 PM on February 16, 2005
Pardon my foray into politics, but here's an analogy- the political Right's favorite tactic recently is to establish an argument about a subject- say, that Evolution is a "theory" and should not be taught exclusively in schools. They then demand that their argument- that Creationism is an equally valid theory- be given merit by journalists merely by its existence as an "alternate viewpoint". You'd find plenty of people willing to speak up and discuss that, but it doesn't change the simple fact that something does not merit mention solely by its existence and because a certain segment of the population demands it be heard.
I will pardon your foray into politics, but not your analogy, which is a poor one. The "theories" you suggest are actual polar opposites--one is a theory more than adequately backed up by scientific fact, the other is a fairy tale that requires faith. What you're talking about is wanting your view of the guidelines enforced more strongly, when precedent suggests that these posts are okay.
Trust me, man, I was there once. I posted a thread about the bad example linking to LOTR trailers set. But you know what? Who cares. They're fun and people seem to be enjoying the discussion. They don't occur every day. They don't occur for every movie, or even most movies, just a few highly anticipated (and geeky) ones. You're going to have to work a lot harder to make a slippery slope argument before I'm going to get my crazy carpet and ride down with you.
posted by The God Complex at 2:15 PM on February 16, 2005
(that said, I don't know why people are so stridently opposed to this thread--hell, it's what the grey is for. the only problem i had was mkultra posting about it a little too much--for my taste--in the thread itself.)
posted by The God Complex at 2:17 PM on February 16, 2005
posted by The God Complex at 2:17 PM on February 16, 2005
"can we agree that it's setting a bad example?"
Obviously not. The onus here is on you, mk, to convince us, and so far, your arguments have been lacking.
I can neither argue that it's good nor bad, it just is.
posted by mischief at 2:49 PM on February 16, 2005
Obviously not. The onus here is on you, mk, to convince us, and so far, your arguments have been lacking.
I can neither argue that it's good nor bad, it just is.
posted by mischief at 2:49 PM on February 16, 2005
Oh come on. A single link to a movie trailer at Amazon no longer counts as a lazy post?
posted by mediareport at 3:34 PM on February 16, 2005
posted by mediareport at 3:34 PM on February 16, 2005
hey, you guys seen that new apple computer? pretty small.
(the trailer was the best post of the day, afaik)
posted by mr.marx at 4:10 PM on February 16, 2005
(the trailer was the best post of the day, afaik)
posted by mr.marx at 4:10 PM on February 16, 2005
Obviously not. The onus here is on you, mk, to convince us, and so far, your arguments have been lacking.
If you've been here as long as you have, and you can't understand why a single-link post to the home page of Amazon.com is a bad post, then you're beyond help, and I weep for the future of MeFi.
posted by mkultra at 4:16 PM on February 16, 2005
If you've been here as long as you have, and you can't understand why a single-link post to the home page of Amazon.com is a bad post, then you're beyond help, and I weep for the future of MeFi.
posted by mkultra at 4:16 PM on February 16, 2005
Did it ever?
Yes. But DON'T PANIC. </obvious>
If you've been here as long as you have, and you can't understand why a single-link post to the home page of Amazon.com is a bad post, then you're beyond help, and I weep for the future of MeFi.
Seconded.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:23 PM on February 16, 2005
Yes. But DON'T PANIC. </obvious>
If you've been here as long as you have, and you can't understand why a single-link post to the home page of Amazon.com is a bad post, then you're beyond help, and I weep for the future of MeFi.
Seconded.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:23 PM on February 16, 2005
I still don't understand how this is worse than posting dippy Flash games.
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:17 PM on February 16, 2005
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:17 PM on February 16, 2005
This web thing, of which we seek the "best", it is an inherently mutable thing, no? It changes, it is dynamic, some may seek to fence sections of it off, but we roam its plains free and wild like the very birds in the air, no?
Today - on this day, the one we were living in when we looked at this link - this was, by our parochial, geeky, sci-fi obsessed, damn-fine-movie-loving standards, amongst the best of the web, no? It was plausibly amongst the twenty, thirty, forty best things that conceivably we could look at (that this site hasn't linked to before) on the web that day?
Um?
Apologies for not having been here as long as you have, but I really hope you'll forgive me for not weeping for the future of MeFi right now.
posted by flashboy at 5:30 PM on February 16, 2005
Today - on this day, the one we were living in when we looked at this link - this was, by our parochial, geeky, sci-fi obsessed, damn-fine-movie-loving standards, amongst the best of the web, no? It was plausibly amongst the twenty, thirty, forty best things that conceivably we could look at (that this site hasn't linked to before) on the web that day?
Um?
Apologies for not having been here as long as you have, but I really hope you'll forgive me for not weeping for the future of MeFi right now.
posted by flashboy at 5:30 PM on February 16, 2005
Look, I've posted lame stuff on occasion; we all have. But jessamyn nailed it above; it's not that much to ask that folks add at least a tiny bit of interesting web context to posts that are nothing more than a link to an upcoming movie trailer.
posted by mediareport at 6:55 PM on February 16, 2005
posted by mediareport at 6:55 PM on February 16, 2005
Difficulty parsing the positive and negative? Why? There's only the one negative in there.
Well, no, see, one level of sarcasm turns the whole phrase negative, so that's two. It didn't "floor" me, thanks, just made it hard to parse, as I couldn't tell if you intended some additional level of irony.
So if I'm understanding you now, and those two negatives cancel each other out, the literal meaning is "because heaven knows it is the snarky comments that make your point a valid one," right? OK, great, so at least we agree my point's valid - but now, I gotta ask, what snarky comments? Mine? The ones in the trailer thread? The ones in this thread? Are you saying that my point was based on the comment-count being inflated by snarky comments? Is that it? If so, I should mention that I haven't read the thread, so I have no idea if most of the comments are snarky or if all of them are 100% sincere, so I don't see the relevance of "snarky comments" to anything I said (other than "snarky" describing my own comment, of course).
Either way, my point remains: Metafilter is, or was, supposedly about the links. People making a case for the link itself on its own merits, e.g. flashboy, great, more power to ya. But arguing for the quality of a link by citing what happens in the comments remains, in my curmudgeonly opinion, bogus.
posted by soyjoy at 9:24 PM on February 16, 2005
Well, no, see, one level of sarcasm turns the whole phrase negative, so that's two. It didn't "floor" me, thanks, just made it hard to parse, as I couldn't tell if you intended some additional level of irony.
So if I'm understanding you now, and those two negatives cancel each other out, the literal meaning is "because heaven knows it is the snarky comments that make your point a valid one," right? OK, great, so at least we agree my point's valid - but now, I gotta ask, what snarky comments? Mine? The ones in the trailer thread? The ones in this thread? Are you saying that my point was based on the comment-count being inflated by snarky comments? Is that it? If so, I should mention that I haven't read the thread, so I have no idea if most of the comments are snarky or if all of them are 100% sincere, so I don't see the relevance of "snarky comments" to anything I said (other than "snarky" describing my own comment, of course).
Either way, my point remains: Metafilter is, or was, supposedly about the links. People making a case for the link itself on its own merits, e.g. flashboy, great, more power to ya. But arguing for the quality of a link by citing what happens in the comments remains, in my curmudgeonly opinion, bogus.
posted by soyjoy at 9:24 PM on February 16, 2005
My point, soyjoy, was that part of the reason that the number of comments is not an indicator of post quality (which indeed is a valid point) is because of all the snarky comments that we all make from time to time, and you have made in this thread. I wasn't singling you out for criticism by any means!
I'd rather this post had been made in a few simple words "Hitchhiker's film trailer" than padded out needlessly with links for the sake of it. If someone really wants to build a better post then you will have a better post; if people feel the need to pad out because there is pressure from the likes of jessadmin then we're going to have an awful lot more average links. This was an average post. Better put briefily, in my humble opinion, than setting a dangerous precedent of "must add links at all costs".
posted by nthdegx at 3:26 AM on February 17, 2005
I'd rather this post had been made in a few simple words "Hitchhiker's film trailer" than padded out needlessly with links for the sake of it. If someone really wants to build a better post then you will have a better post; if people feel the need to pad out because there is pressure from the likes of jessadmin then we're going to have an awful lot more average links. This was an average post. Better put briefily, in my humble opinion, than setting a dangerous precedent of "must add links at all costs".
posted by nthdegx at 3:26 AM on February 17, 2005
Of course, nthdegx, you left out the third option: adding *interesting* links about the movie being trailered. It is entirely possible to elevate an "average" link by including other relevant links that are a bit more unusual and interesting. That's hardly padding a post just "for the sake of it."
posted by mediareport at 5:41 PM on February 17, 2005
posted by mediareport at 5:41 PM on February 17, 2005
BYW, it was already explained and explained in advance, but now it can be directly linked:
Why such a one-link post might be a bad idea.
posted by soyjoy at 10:24 AM on February 18, 2005
Why such a one-link post might be a bad idea.
posted by soyjoy at 10:24 AM on February 18, 2005
mediareport, I thought I covered that point with "If someone really wants to build a better post then you will have a better post".
posted by nthdegx at 5:13 AM on February 23, 2005
posted by nthdegx at 5:13 AM on February 23, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:58 AM on February 16, 2005